Re: [uknof] UK interconnects and Brexit

[Kev 'Kyrian' Green (List)]

I was musing much the same the other day, and found this LiNX 
presentation on the matter which might help some folks:


https://www.linx.net/wp-content/uploads/LINX105-BrexitPeering-MalcolmHutty-1.pdf

K.

--
Kev "Kyrian" Green.WWW: http://kyrian.ore.org/
Linux Security + Hosting + DevOps@ http://www.orenet.co.uk/

"The strongest of all warriors are these two - Time and Patience."
  -- Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace.

Re: [uknof] UK interconnects and Brexit

[Rob Evans]

Hi,


Sorry to bring up the B word but is Brexit causing UK operators to
have to renegotiate transit and peering arrangements with their
continental counterparts?


Transit and peering not so much as we do most of it in the UK so getting 
the packet passports is their problem. :-)


We’ve been through a lot of prep over the last couple of years on 
supply chains and spares holdings, and trying to reduce the probability 
of our support contractors going “yes, the nearest replacement card 
we’ve got for your P1 fault is in Amsterdam, it will be with you in 
four hours^H^H^H^H^Hdays^H^H^H^Hweeks.”


Plus work on our relationship with the pan-European R network, which 
is co-funded by the EC.



Looking at this: https://www.submarinecablemap.com/
I imagine a fair amount of connectivity into western, central and
eastern Europe will be dependent on connections via the European
Union.


It’s also a concern for our Irish counterparts who would prefer their 
traffic to the rest of Europe not to transit the non-EU UK.  
Unfortunately there’s little in the way of infrastructure to avoid it 
at the moment…


Cheers,
Rob

Re: [uknof] UK interconnects and Brexit

[Marek Isalski]

On 2020-12-10 18:38, Paul Mansfield wrote:

Sorry to bring up the B word but is Brexit causing UK operators to
have to renegotiate transit and peering arrangements with their
continental counterparts?


We're having to retune some DWDM optics to the blue band of 0.06102 
thou.  Seeing a very high level of attenuation now. :( :( :(


--
Marek Isalski
CTO, Faelix Limited, https://faelix.net/

Faelix Limited: Security, Networks & Software.  Registered in England 
and Wales.  Office: The Yard, 11 Bent Street, Manchester, M8 8NF.  
Company: 5852778.  VAT: 889 441470.

[uknof] UK interconnects and Brexit

[Paul Mansfield]

Sorry to bring up the B word but is Brexit causing UK operators to
have to renegotiate transit and peering arrangements with their
continental counterparts?

Looking at this: https://www.submarinecablemap.com/
I imagine a fair amount of connectivity into western, central and
eastern Europe will be dependent on connections via the European
Union.

[uknof] OARC 34 Workshop, February 4th & 5th, Registration and Call for Contributions now open

[Keith Mitchell]

OARC 34 will be an online meeting on February 4th & 5th starting at
16:00 UTC. The Programme Committee is seeking contributions from the
community.

All DNS-related subjects and suggestions for discussion topics are
welcome. Based on the feedback from the previous workshop, the DNS-OARC
audience is interested to see more content related to DNS operations.
Therefore we are particularly interested in submissions from DNS
Operators about attack mitigation and any major (public or non-public)
DNS outages that your organization might have faced over the last year
or so, the steps taken to resolve/mitigate the immediate issue, and to
prevent future such events and any lessons learned.

As it is an online workshop, we'd like to encourage brevity;
presentations should not be longer than 20 minutes (with additional time
for questions).

**Workshop Milestones:**

* 9 Dec 2020 - Submissions open via Indico
* 4 Jan 2021 - Deadline for submission (23:59 UTC)
* 14 Jan 2021 - Initial Contribution list published
* 21 Jan 2021 - Full agenda published
* 28 Jan 2021 - Deadline for slideset submission and Rehearsal
* 4 Feb 2021 - OARC 34 Workshop

The Registration page and details for presentation submission are
published at:

    

To allow the Programme Committee to make objective assessments of
submissions, so as to ensure the quality of the workshop, submissions
SHOULD include slides. Draft slides are acceptable on submission.
 
If you have questions or concerns you can contact the Programme Committee:

    https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc/programme

via 


Keith Mitchell, on behalf of the DNS-OARC Programme Committee


(Please note that OARC is run on a non-profit basis, and is not in a
position to reimburse expenses or time for speakers at its meetings.)

Re: [uknof] Packet loss?

[Chris Boot]

On 10/12/2020 14:03, Will Hargrave wrote:
It’s a bit surprising that AS39537 is on 
peeringdb as present in MA1 and THN but just uses transit providers to 
reach other UK networks


You're right, that is a bit surprising, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't 
always that way...


My gut feeling is the problem’s in the reverse path (traffic towards 
you).


I don't know why I didn't think to check the reverse path, but you're 
spot on. Both those traces share a common path through Entanet AS8468 
and (I think) LINX Wales on the return path:


Start: 2020-12-10T14:25:11+
HOST: server3 Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  Wrst StDev
  1. AS???192.168.0.2500.0%   1000.3   0.2   0.1   0.4 
  0.1
  2. AS?????? 100.0   1000.0   0.0   0.0   0.0 
  0.0
  3. AS199448 185.6.196.1740.0%   100   10.1  11.4   9.8  20.3 
  2.1
  4. AS199448 185.6.196.13 0.0%   100   10.1  11.3   9.9  19.9 
  2.1
  5. AS8468   188.39.74.2130.0%   100   10.8  12.1  10.6  23.6 
  2.1
  6. AS8468   188.39.127.200.0%   100   12.0  12.0  10.5  21.3 
  1.9
  7. AS8468   188.39.127.149   0.0%   100   10.7  12.1  10.5  19.8 
  2.1
  8. AS8468   188.39.127.75   15.0%   100   10.9  12.6  10.8  22.0 
  2.2
  9. AS???172.30.0.15521.0%   100   11.6  13.3  11.3  20.7 
  2.4
 10. AS???172.30.0.15963.0%   100   11.9  13.4  11.6  20.0 
  2.4
 11. AS???172.30.0.16356.0%   100   13.8  15.0  13.6  24.0 
  2.2
 12. AS8468   188.39.127.260.0%   100   14.5  15.7  14.1  24.8 
  2.1
 13. AS8468   188.39.127.190   0.0%   100   20.6  22.7  19.7  39.6 
  4.2
 14. AS???195.66.228.10   75.0%   100   15.2  18.4  15.0  67.0 
 10.2
 15. AS39537  31.210.132.45   76.0%   100   15.7  16.7  14.9  28.0 
  3.0
 16. AS39537  31.210.134.26   78.0%   100   17.0  16.2  15.1  22.0 
  1.6
 17. AS39537  31.210.128.190  76.0%   100   16.5  17.3  15.5  27.6 
  2.7


Start: 2020-12-10T14:24:55+
HOST: begbrokeLoss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  Wrst StDev
  1. AS8468   87.127.233.201   0.0%   1001.2   1.5   1.0  23.2 
  2.4
  2. AS???10.100.30.85 0.0%   1005.4   5.5   5.2  15.2 
  1.0
  3. AS???172.30.0.189 0.0%   1005.2   5.0   4.9   5.4 
  0.1
  4. AS???172.30.0.15528.0%   1005.4   5.6   5.3  11.2 
  0.7
  5. AS???172.30.0.15959.0%   1005.8   6.1   5.6  12.2 
  1.1
  6. AS???172.30.0.16358.0%   1007.7   7.8   7.6   9.0 
  0.2
  7. AS8468   188.39.127.260.0%   1008.3   9.0   8.2  25.7 
  2.7
  8. AS8468   188.39.127.190   0.0%   100   14.9  16.5  14.7  26.3 
  2.3
  9. AS?????? 100.0   1000.0   0.0   0.0   0.0 
  0.0
 10. AS39537  31.210.132.45   73.0%   100   10.2  10.1   9.9  10.5 
  0.1
 11. AS39537  31.210.134.26   78.0%   100   10.2  10.2   9.9  10.6 
  0.2
 12. AS39537  31.210.128.190  71.0%   100   10.8  11.0  10.0  18.7 
  1.5


I'll pursue this with AS39537...

Thanks,
Chris

--
Chris Boot
bo...@boo.tc

Re: [uknof] Packet loss?

[Will Hargrave]

Forgot to mention, this presentation is a great use to using traceroute 
to troubleshoot effectively and is worth a read, even for experienced 
netengs :)

It’s certainly refreshed my memory on few things.

https://archive.nanog.org/meetings/nanog47/presentations/Sunday/RAS_Traceroute_N47_Sun.pdf
https://youtu.be/WL0ZTcfSvB4

Cheers,
--
Will Hargrave
Technical Director
LONAP Ltd

On 10 Dec 2020, at 14:03, Will Hargrave wrote:


Hi Chris,

It’s going to be difficult for many UKNOF people to have visibility 
of any problem here because both AS8468 and AS39326 have a 
well-considered interconnection policy, both public and private, and 
would be reached by most of us over peering. It’s a bit surprising 
that AS39537 is on peeringdb as present in MA1 and THN but just uses 
transit providers to reach other UK networks - but I would say that, I 
operate an internet exchange :-)


My gut feeling is the problem’s in the reverse path (traffic towards 
you). You could look at some looking glasses to see what routes they 
are using towards you -  e.g HSO have a LG at http://as39326.net/lg


A RIPE Atlas probe also might help you track it down, if there’s one 
in your AS.



--
Will Hargrave
Technical Director
LONAP Ltd


On 10 Dec 2020, at 12:26, Chris Boot wrote:


Hi all,

Sorry for the vague subject, but we've been experiencing intermittent 
packet loss on certain routes a long way downstream from us since 
~10:35 this morning. Some example MTRs:


Start: 2020-12-10T12:23:40+
HOST: sea Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  
Wrst StDev
  1. AS39537  31.210.128.187   0.0%   1000.7   0.8   0.3   
1.4   0.3
  2. AS39537  31.210.134.250.0%   1001.0   2.0   0.7  
75.7   7.4
  3. AS39537  31.210.132.580.0%   1002.3   2.7   1.6  
19.5   2.3
  4. AS39537  31.210.132.540.0%   1002.9   4.5   1.8 
164.9  16.5
  5. AS39537  31.210.132.110.0%   1006.1   7.8   4.9 
183.6  17.9
  6. AS174149.6.2.137  0.0%   1006.4   6.4   5.2  
34.8   2.9
  7. AS1299   62.115.9.28 19.0%   1006.2   6.1   5.4   
6.9   0.3
  8. AS1299   62.115.122.180   1.0%   1006.0   6.4   5.2  
26.3   2.3
  9. AS1299   62.115.120.239  42.0%   1005.8   7.2   5.3  
39.0   5.7
 10. AS?????? 100.0   1000.0   0.0   0.0   
0.0   0.0
 11. AS39326  185.75.28.1750.0%   1005.7   6.1   5.3  
12.7   0.8
 12. AS39326  77.75.104.53 5.0%   1006.7   6.3   5.6   
7.9   0.4
 13. AS?????? 100.0   1000.0   0.0   0.0   
0.0   0.0
 14. AS199448 185.6.199.1864.0%   100   17.5  20.1  15.1  
33.8   4.1


Start: 2020-12-10T12:23:32+
HOST: sea Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  
Wrst StDev
  1. AS39537  31.210.128.187   0.0%   1000.7   0.9   0.3   
2.0   0.3
  2. AS39537  31.210.134.250.0%   1001.0   4.0   0.6 
166.7  19.5
  3. AS39537  31.210.132.580.0%   1005.4   6.9   4.9 
127.0  12.1
  4. AS39537  31.210.132.540.0%   1005.5   7.3   5.0 
154.7  14.9
  5. AS39537  31.210.132.110.0%   1005.3   8.1   4.9 
156.6  16.9
  6. AS39537  31.210.132.500.0%   1005.3   7.8   5.0 
199.6  19.4
  7. AS3356   212.187.173.117  0.0%   1005.4   5.8   5.0   
7.5   0.4
  8. AS3356   4.69.202.178 0.0%   1005.5   7.7   5.2  
52.6   7.2
  9. AS3356   212.187.165.14   9.0%   1006.5   6.9   6.1   
9.1   0.5
 10. AS8468   188.39.127.175  12.0%   1006.5   7.0   6.2   
8.9   0.4
 11. AS8468   188.39.127.147   7.0%   1006.8   7.1   6.0  
32.2   2.7
 12. AS8468   188.39.127.738.0%   1006.3   6.3   5.6   
7.4   0.3
 13. AS?????? 100.0   1000.0   0.0   0.0   
0.0   0.0
 14. AS?????? 100.0   1000.0   0.0   0.0   
0.0   0.0
 15. AS8468   87.127.233.205   7.0%   1009.9  10.5   9.8  
17.4   0.8


Any information on this would be really handy so we can let our 
clients know what's going on.


Many thanks,
Chris

--
Chris Boot
bo...@boo.tc

Re: [uknof] Packet loss?

[Will Hargrave]

Hi Chris,

It’s going to be difficult for many UKNOF people to have visibility of 
any problem here because both AS8468 and AS39326 have a well-considered 
interconnection policy, both public and private, and would be reached by 
most of us over peering. It’s a bit surprising that AS39537 is on 
peeringdb as present in MA1 and THN but just uses transit providers to 
reach other UK networks - but I would say that, I operate an internet 
exchange :-)


My gut feeling is the problem’s in the reverse path (traffic towards 
you). You could look at some looking glasses to see what routes they are 
using towards you -  e.g HSO have a LG at http://as39326.net/lg


A RIPE Atlas probe also might help you track it down, if there’s one 
in your AS.



--
Will Hargrave
Technical Director
LONAP Ltd


On 10 Dec 2020, at 12:26, Chris Boot wrote:


Hi all,

Sorry for the vague subject, but we've been experiencing intermittent 
packet loss on certain routes a long way downstream from us since 
~10:35 this morning. Some example MTRs:


Start: 2020-12-10T12:23:40+
HOST: sea Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  Wrst 
StDev
  1. AS39537  31.210.128.187   0.0%   1000.7   0.8   0.3   1.4 
  0.3
  2. AS39537  31.210.134.250.0%   1001.0   2.0   0.7  75.7 
  7.4
  3. AS39537  31.210.132.580.0%   1002.3   2.7   1.6  19.5 
  2.3
  4. AS39537  31.210.132.540.0%   1002.9   4.5   1.8 164.9 
 16.5
  5. AS39537  31.210.132.110.0%   1006.1   7.8   4.9 183.6 
 17.9
  6. AS174149.6.2.137  0.0%   1006.4   6.4   5.2  34.8 
  2.9
  7. AS1299   62.115.9.28 19.0%   1006.2   6.1   5.4   6.9 
  0.3
  8. AS1299   62.115.122.180   1.0%   1006.0   6.4   5.2  26.3 
  2.3
  9. AS1299   62.115.120.239  42.0%   1005.8   7.2   5.3  39.0 
  5.7
 10. AS?????? 100.0   1000.0   0.0   0.0   0.0 
  0.0
 11. AS39326  185.75.28.1750.0%   1005.7   6.1   5.3  12.7 
  0.8
 12. AS39326  77.75.104.53 5.0%   1006.7   6.3   5.6   7.9 
  0.4
 13. AS?????? 100.0   1000.0   0.0   0.0   0.0 
  0.0
 14. AS199448 185.6.199.1864.0%   100   17.5  20.1  15.1  33.8 
  4.1


Start: 2020-12-10T12:23:32+
HOST: sea Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  Wrst 
StDev
  1. AS39537  31.210.128.187   0.0%   1000.7   0.9   0.3   2.0 
  0.3
  2. AS39537  31.210.134.250.0%   1001.0   4.0   0.6 166.7 
 19.5
  3. AS39537  31.210.132.580.0%   1005.4   6.9   4.9 127.0 
 12.1
  4. AS39537  31.210.132.540.0%   1005.5   7.3   5.0 154.7 
 14.9
  5. AS39537  31.210.132.110.0%   1005.3   8.1   4.9 156.6 
 16.9
  6. AS39537  31.210.132.500.0%   1005.3   7.8   5.0 199.6 
 19.4
  7. AS3356   212.187.173.117  0.0%   1005.4   5.8   5.0   7.5 
  0.4
  8. AS3356   4.69.202.178 0.0%   1005.5   7.7   5.2  52.6 
  7.2
  9. AS3356   212.187.165.14   9.0%   1006.5   6.9   6.1   9.1 
  0.5
 10. AS8468   188.39.127.175  12.0%   1006.5   7.0   6.2   8.9 
  0.4
 11. AS8468   188.39.127.147   7.0%   1006.8   7.1   6.0  32.2 
  2.7
 12. AS8468   188.39.127.738.0%   1006.3   6.3   5.6   7.4 
  0.3
 13. AS?????? 100.0   1000.0   0.0   0.0   0.0 
  0.0
 14. AS?????? 100.0   1000.0   0.0   0.0   0.0 
  0.0
 15. AS8468   87.127.233.205   7.0%   1009.9  10.5   9.8  17.4 
  0.8


Any information on this would be really handy so we can let our 
clients know what's going on.


Many thanks,
Chris

--
Chris Boot
bo...@boo.tc

[uknof] Packet loss?

[Chris Boot]

Hi all,

Sorry for the vague subject, but we've been experiencing intermittent 
packet loss on certain routes a long way downstream from us since ~10:35 
this morning. Some example MTRs:


Start: 2020-12-10T12:23:40+
HOST: sea Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  Wrst StDev
  1. AS39537  31.210.128.187   0.0%   1000.7   0.8   0.3   1.4 
  0.3
  2. AS39537  31.210.134.250.0%   1001.0   2.0   0.7  75.7 
  7.4
  3. AS39537  31.210.132.580.0%   1002.3   2.7   1.6  19.5 
  2.3
  4. AS39537  31.210.132.540.0%   1002.9   4.5   1.8 164.9 
 16.5
  5. AS39537  31.210.132.110.0%   1006.1   7.8   4.9 183.6 
 17.9
  6. AS174149.6.2.137  0.0%   1006.4   6.4   5.2  34.8 
  2.9
  7. AS1299   62.115.9.28 19.0%   1006.2   6.1   5.4   6.9 
  0.3
  8. AS1299   62.115.122.180   1.0%   1006.0   6.4   5.2  26.3 
  2.3
  9. AS1299   62.115.120.239  42.0%   1005.8   7.2   5.3  39.0 
  5.7
 10. AS?????? 100.0   1000.0   0.0   0.0   0.0 
  0.0
 11. AS39326  185.75.28.1750.0%   1005.7   6.1   5.3  12.7 
  0.8
 12. AS39326  77.75.104.53 5.0%   1006.7   6.3   5.6   7.9 
  0.4
 13. AS?????? 100.0   1000.0   0.0   0.0   0.0 
  0.0
 14. AS199448 185.6.199.1864.0%   100   17.5  20.1  15.1  33.8 
  4.1


Start: 2020-12-10T12:23:32+
HOST: sea Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  Wrst StDev
  1. AS39537  31.210.128.187   0.0%   1000.7   0.9   0.3   2.0 
  0.3
  2. AS39537  31.210.134.250.0%   1001.0   4.0   0.6 166.7 
 19.5
  3. AS39537  31.210.132.580.0%   1005.4   6.9   4.9 127.0 
 12.1
  4. AS39537  31.210.132.540.0%   1005.5   7.3   5.0 154.7 
 14.9
  5. AS39537  31.210.132.110.0%   1005.3   8.1   4.9 156.6 
 16.9
  6. AS39537  31.210.132.500.0%   1005.3   7.8   5.0 199.6 
 19.4
  7. AS3356   212.187.173.117  0.0%   1005.4   5.8   5.0   7.5 
  0.4
  8. AS3356   4.69.202.178 0.0%   1005.5   7.7   5.2  52.6 
  7.2
  9. AS3356   212.187.165.14   9.0%   1006.5   6.9   6.1   9.1 
  0.5
 10. AS8468   188.39.127.175  12.0%   1006.5   7.0   6.2   8.9 
  0.4
 11. AS8468   188.39.127.147   7.0%   1006.8   7.1   6.0  32.2 
  2.7
 12. AS8468   188.39.127.738.0%   1006.3   6.3   5.6   7.4 
  0.3
 13. AS?????? 100.0   1000.0   0.0   0.0   0.0 
  0.0
 14. AS?????? 100.0   1000.0   0.0   0.0   0.0 
  0.0
 15. AS8468   87.127.233.205   7.0%   1009.9  10.5   9.8  17.4 
  0.8


Any information on this would be really handy so we can let our clients 
know what's going on.


Many thanks,
Chris

--
Chris Boot
bo...@boo.tc